Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish readOnly=true, destructive=false, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is free; the description earns credit by adding authorization detail (a buyer, seller, or logistics key all work) and by naming the exact response fields, including the "who did what when" shape of status_history. It stops short of stating error or not-found behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense sentences with no filler: capability and required auth first, return payload second. Every clause carries information an agent needs before calling.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A read-only, two-parameter tool with no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the four return fields. Minor gap: "deadline" and "next_actor" are named but their semantics (what deadline, whose turn) are not expanded.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds a non-obvious constraint by clarifying that the api_key may come from any participant role, which the schema does not say. order_id is left to the schema, which documents it adequately.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Uses a specific verb ("Query") with a concrete resource (order status) and enumerates the payload: status, full history, responsible party, deadline. It clearly separates itself from chat/approval/order-listing siblings by being the status+history reader, though it never names an alternative tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Requires api_key of order participant" gives an access precondition (any participant role qualifies), which is real usage context, but there is no guidance on when to pick this over webaz_buyer_orders or webaz_order_chat, and no exclusions or error conditions stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.